You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Abortion’ tag.
PZ Myers discusses abortion and how asinine the anti-choice positions actually are. From the article Abortion rights are human rights.
[…]
However, the equivalence of mother and fetus is an untenable proposition. A mouse has more complexity and autonomy than a fetus, and we don’t even hesitate when the choice is between the life of a mouse and a human being. We don’t even argue about it. And to argue that a single-celled zygote or even an embryo with a few dozen cells at implantation is anything but a negligible component of any moral equation is utterly absurd. It’s a fantasy of the deeply ignorant, the kind of people who think the babies on Pro-Life Across America billboards are actually accurate representations of the age-specific fetus, to think that there’s something cute, adorable, personable about a self-organizing mass of cells.
So I have to agree, and think the only reasonable conclusion, is reflected in this memorial to Dr George Tiller, the man murdered by an anti-choice fanatic.
Dr. Tiller listened to his patients, he trusted their decisions, and he knew that the people he was helping deserved his ear and his trust. He treated his patients like people (which really shouldn’t be such a radical position but, because of how anti-choicers have shaped the narrative around abortion, it is). He believed that those he helped were more important than the fetus inside of them. That is not a morally-bankrupt position. THAT IS THE MORAL SIDE.
Trusting patients, seeing them as individuals, believing in their abilities to make decisions for their own specific lives: THAT IS THE MORAL SIDE.
Thank you for everything you did, Dr. Tiller. Thank you for everything and everyone you championed. Thank you for risking your life to provide your patients with a safe and legal medical procedure. Thank you for doing so with no regrets, no animosity, no judgement, and no apologies.
You, sir, were a moral man on a moral mission. And I won’t forget it. WE ARE THE MORAL SIDE.
Well said. Also, a brief summation from the comments section of that same post which bears repetition; many thanks to mythbri for making clear and concise argument:
This conversation has been had over and over again with other similar commenters here. Is any further evidence necessary to demonstrate that there are non-religious folk who are still anti-choice (even though both of these commenters seem to be in the “I’m pro-choice, but” category)?
…
jimashby
Here is why I despise “I’m pro-choice, but” people more than people who are just plain anti-choice:
You are setting arbitrary conditions on my humanity.
Do you understand this? Do you get that I am a person with bodily autonomy 100% of the time. Not just for 20 weeks. Not just for two trimesters. Not even 99.95% of the time.
I am a person (with all the rights that entails) 100% of the time.
That does not magically change when or if I become pregnant, and honestly, it scares the SHIT out of me that anyone thinks that it does.
You know why the anti-choice and the “I’m pro-choice, but” positions are necessarily misogynistic? Because you are making the assumption that there are women out there that are making choice that you don’t approve of, and that your opinion of their choices is even remotely relevant or worth respecting.
You think that it’s okay for a woman’s choice about her own body to be irrelevant. You’re okay with the fact that arbitrary “viability” restrictions on abortions DO cause women to have children they don’t want. You’re okay with the fact that these arbitrary restrictions DO cause women to lose their health or their life. And while you’ll probably claim that you’re not “okay” with these things, this is the fucking reality of the situation. Okay? Your wishfulness for a perfect legal solution does not magically make this solution the reality, and if you’re aware of that and are okay with the collateral damage this causes to some women who slip through this imperfect and wrong system, then I’ve got nothing further to say to you.
You know why I despise you “I’m pro-choice, but” types? Because I don’t see you doing anything to curb the erosion of reproductive rights that we face in the U.S. I see you shrugging your shoulders and saying “That’s plenty of time” or “They can always go somewhere else for an abortion.”
You know why I despise you “I’m pro-choice, but” types? Because in these discussions, there is barely a smidgen of difference between you and an anti-choice type.
Deal with it.
How many more examples do we need of the lethal nature of the supposedly “pro-life” position? Let’s clear this up by naming them correctly, for the record, when you hear the term “Pro-life” you need to replace that with “anti-woman forced birth advocate”. Why? Because what forced birthers are about is stripping women of their rights and of their bodily autonomy. Beatriz, like Savita Halappanavar, is being put in mortal peril because where she lives the forced birth brigades ideas are reality, and women really do not have rights.
“The 22-year-old woman suffers from severe and complicated illnesses. Her doctors have told her that she will likely die giving birth, and the unborn child will most likely live only a few hours, but she is prevented by law from having an abortion. “They [the Supreme Court] were not convinced this is the way… they are saying Beatriz is not in danger and she must pursue the natural way of delivery and we must see what happens,” said Mata. “It isn’t just an abortion, it is a necessity,” said Mata, in an earlier interview with CBSNews.com”
Yeah. The all male supreme court has ruled that this woman is not in danger and must continue with birth. Their noble dedication to preserving life is noted.
Beatriz is carrying an anencephalic fetus, which means it has no brain and is only expected to survive at maximum a few hours after birth, even if she carries it to full term. Beatriz has lupus, worsened by a kidney malfunction, and it is very dangerous for her to be pregnant. “The doctors are saying it’s very critical because the lupus may be reactivated and if the lupus is reactivated it is very dangerous for her health,” he added. She is now 26-weeks pregnant, and every day it becomes more risky for her to be pregnant and have an abortion at such a late stage.
This is what happens when legislate against women. Women are endangered and their lives are at risk.
According to a 2012 report from the Central American Women’s Network, 628 women have been imprisoned in El Salvador since its anti-abortion law was enacted in 1998. Twenty-four of these women were indicted for “aggravated murder,” after an abortion, miscarriage, or stillbirth. “The only way now is to go to the international courts,” said Mata. Meanwhile, Beatriz awaits her fate in hospital, separated from her 14-month old son and her husband. “Everyday, the health of Beatriz is [getting] worse. If they wait another week or two weeks, she will be too feeble to endure the operation,” said Mata.
So because of the religiously inspired pro-life fuckwittery of the Roman Catholic Church (this is what a society where they have tangible influence looks like) it is most likely Beatriz will die.
No rant today – this is too outrageous and too cold for a rant. This is an tragic (because it is preventible) object lesson – women die and are dying because they are denied their reproductive rights and rights to bodily autonomy.
That is all.
The vast amount of shit the forced brith advocates spew into the interwebs lends new meaning to the word grotesque. Our anti-choice friends have been faffing on long and hard about Dr. Kermit Gosnell conveniently forgetting about Savita Halappanavar’s terminal experience with their fetid dogma .
Let me spell it out, you antediluvian, dim-witted, anti-choice bastion of fuckwitttery.
Cases like Dr.Gosnell’s are exactly what happens when you limit women’s access to abortion. His practice was under-regulated and in clear violation of any sort of reasonable set of medical expectations. We need less of what Dr.Gosnell did, not more. Yet, you cro-magnon bible thumping gits harass and scare away ethical doctors and practices – you know places where women can get safe medical care – and leave them with the back ally option offered by Dr.Gosnell. This case is squarely on your heads my forced-birth friends, now and forever as your insipid campaign against women and their autonomy creaks along.
We now get a closer look at the hollow arguments you put forth in your crusade against women with a helpful deconstruction to show exactly how wrong you are.
If a choice of any kind supersedes a right to life, then the choice is not only wrong but unthinkable. (Oh completely, because being forced to give birth is fucking freedom loving fun.) In 1973, a handful of people dressed in black robes (A.K.A The Supreme Court – You know, one of the bastions of a free secular society that is holding the religious theocracy your are pining for at bay.) told the United States that life will not impede law.
(ed. Adding paragraph break to mitigate the crazy.)
While it is broadly known that abortion has been happening since ancient times, it was not blatantly lauded as a personal right to save your own life from the burden of being a mother or father (Yes, because you know what is best for each and every woman in the world, the view must be positively rosy from your religious high-horse.). Abortion was not an assumed option for married couples, but it was and continues to be for adulterers and those who are sexual active before marriage (Your constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom from religion – follow your founding documents Theocrat and stop forcing your dogmatic shite down peoples throats). If you are prepared to have sex either before or outside of marriage, then be prepared for parenthood. (Yes, because all sex should be only for procreation…*facepalm forever*.) Sacrificing a child’s life for your own is the highest form of narcissism (Oh completely,because women need to be forced to give birth, mandatory pregnancy will only make family life and child-rearing easier. Why? Because god said so…)
But I love these idiot articles (I do as well, it makes showing how full of fecal matter Forced Birth Advocates are) ; it makes me thankful that I know THE God (Embracing mythology and fairy-tales to prove how right you are is prima-facie example of intellectual-assholery.) that knows the right answers (*ring-ring* It’s unsupported claims office, they want their statement back), that gives LIFE and loves us spite of us.
I’m smart enough(?) to know I don’t speak for God – He speaks for Himself while the prochoice rhetoric tries to speak for everyone despite our right to say no, which we have. (So, the god that happens to share your exact opinions is the only one allowed to speak, convenient that.) The only person that speaks for me is God (If you are hearing voices, you should consult a psychiatrist.) not some flippy idiot dressed in a ‘lady parts’ costume or a death-defying God hater (Kinda sounds like a superhero persona – The Masked Death Defying God Hater; it may have some mileage to it :).)
“He said MYTH, 1: Laws against abortion have always been based on concern about unborn life.”
The unborn have always been forefront in every illustration, every example and every instance of the Prolife Movement. The statement that abortion was not about the unborn is just plain ASININE: If it weren’t for the unborn victims and dead or injured women, there would not be an argument: MYTH EXPOSED.
The utter lack of reading comprehension on display is amazing. This is what the article said: (editorial note: I quote here from the original article being thoughtlessly dissected by the idjit of the day)
“Abortion was generally legal in the United States until the mid-19th century. At that time, physicians eager to professionalize obstetrics pressed state legislatures to outlaw midwifery and abortion while granting doctors sole authority over pregnancy and childbearing. State anti-abortion statutes were primarily justified on the grounds that women needed to be saved from uneducated folk practitioners, infections, future infertility and other physical risks.
In the courtroom, prosecutors rarely discussed the unborn, instead accusing abortion providers of preventing women from fulfilling their destiny: motherhood. When early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion, they argued that the disconnect between sexual intercourse and maternity endangered women’s chastity — at the time considered their main basis for moral standing and personal dignity.”
So arguing against the veracity of the provided historical context is one thing, but coming up with a statement like this is nothing more than mere confabulating: “The statement that abortion was not about the unborn is just plain ASININE”. I hate to break it to you, but there is only one asinine person in the room cupcake, and it happens to be you.
The Right in Canada was bloodily united a couple of years ago under the banner the old, yet new again, banner of the Conservative Party. The two precursor parties were the Progressive Conservative Party and the (Wack-a-loon) Reform (Alliance/fascist/reactionary/etc) Party of Western Canada. Sadly, as I hail from Western Canada, I cannot but feel partially responsible for bringing the supernovae grade stupidity and fail into power. In my defense, I’ve done what I can helping elect, Federally, the only New Democratic Party candidate (woo!, Linda Duncan!) in this political backwater called the lovely province of Alberta.
Patience gentle readers, as I am setting up some background to better frame the insipid gurglings we are hearing from the backbenches of the Conservatives party as of late. Steven Harper, our beloved leader, essentially won his majority because our right-centre Liberal party, for the last seven years, has had a gargantuan case of cranial vapour lock and simply cannot get its shite together. Thus, traditional centerist voters rather than voting for the “scary” New Democratic Party (because social democratic values are Satan), voted for the the seemingly calm, stable monolith known as the Conservative Party of Canada.
Harper, whose child-eating smile still makes me cringe, is a backroom authoritarian who is more than happy to sell Canada’s people down the river to corporate and business interests. Harper though, the High King of the reform party, brought to the table all the false populist beliefs that makes the red-necks here in Western Canada bray with crazy-eyed delight. Tough on the poor, women and foreigners, family values and all that hoopla. It is the usual traditional nonsense that sounds fucking AMAZING to the poor feckless (read false populist) sobs that greedly eat that shite up come election day.
Fortunately, the regressive bullcookery of Western Canada doesn’t play well in Eastern Canada where most of the votes are, so all those gob-smacked, turd-streaked policies that Harper trumpeted in the West quickly got tucked away under his big ole cowboy hat. Then surprisingly(?) enough, he almost exclusively talked about a reasonably sane economic platform (admittedly ‘reasonable’ is a stretch) to the rest of Canada, winning him the election over the fractured parties of the Left.
Harper won the election by controlling and essentially muzzling the pack of socially conservative dipshites that were elected in Western Canada. The “S2 Directive” (sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up) has been an iron rule in the Conservative Caucus. The bug-frakking-nutz ideology is starting to bubble over Harper’s carefully crafted message. Now we are starting to see the rampantly bat-shite, wilde-eyed social conservatives come out of the rotten woodwork of the governing party and demand the regressive social platform that got them elected in (*sigh*) Western Canada.
Let me show you the abortion law in Canada:
“____________________________________________________________________________________________________”
There isn’t one. That decision is left up to the woman. End of story. No legal restrictions and thus, none of the twelve different flavours of socially regressive bullshit that is happening down in the US at the moment. Hence, in Canada, Women’s autonomy and rights are (for the most part) being respected and this gentle reader, is officially a GOOD thing. Cue the clown-car entry of concerned male-white-dude Mark Warawa MP from Langley BC and his ‘thin edge of the wedge’ selective sex abortion tirade against women and their rights.
Mr.Warawa’s noble attempts to get women closer to broodmare status have been smacked down repeatedly in the Canadian parliament. Much to Harper’s chagrin Warawa is not sitting down nor is he shutting up, he’s calling the ‘waaaaambulance’ and faffing on about being repressed and going on histrionically about how democracy died on this day. The loopy-gnats representatives of the failosphere have clawed a hole in Harper’s big ole centrist-economics hat and are spilling out all over table spilling their garbanzo-bean crazy as far as the eye can see.
From the CBC, in this article Warawa has already been shut down once, but insane doesn’t know the meaning of the word stop (or deleterious to the party), so he warbles onward:
“Conservative MP Mark Warawa has lost his appeal to bring a motion condemning sex-selective abortion to the House of Commons for debate.
The procedure and House affairs committee upheld a decision by its subcommittee that Warawa’s motion, M-408, isn’t eligible to be debated by MPs, despite the advice of a non-partisan Library of Parliament analyst that the motion was in order.”
Like the fetid ramblings of Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth Warawa has had his shit-shutdown. I’m guessing that this is only the tip of the iceberg of stupid that is the socially regressive base of the Conservative party. Undaunted by opposition from within his party and common sense, Warawa plows on.
“Warawa has five sitting days to appeal to the House of Commons, but with MPs returning to their ridings for two weeks, that brings his appeal deadline to April 19. He says he’ll announce his decision when the House returns on April 15.
The MP for Langley, B.C., said Monday he has the backing he needs to bring the appeal, with the support of five MPs from two recognized parties. That appeal will lead to a secret ballot over whether the motion can be brought for debate.
Warawa said he’s “very disappointed” but was going to take a few days before deciding whether to appeal. He can also introduce another private member’s bill or motion instead of appealing the decision.”
It looks like Conservative back bench has cranked the stupid-o-tron to 11(!1!!11!!!), broken the dial off, and flushed it down the crapper.
“My conscience is my guide, but I also am proud to be a member of the Conservative caucus,” Warawa said.
You sir, are an arrogant, misogynistic, snivelling, cock-sweater of a human being. Take your conscience and ram it sideways into the brain-trust known as your arsehole. Women and women alone are best arbitrators of their reproductive systems(aka their bodies). Despite the abortion issue being settled, Harper’s backbench are threatening to go all Lord of the Flies on his ass, and are taking umbrage at their right to free-speech being trampled on. Funny my backbenchy friends, how you were comfortable with Harper’s hobnailed boots on your necks, while he was winning you the election. Just sayin’.
“New Brunswick MP John Williamson, who in 2009 worked for Harper as his director of communications, said blocking any MP from delivering a statement is “is a violation of privilege or right” and that the speaker recognizes MPs directly, not via their parties.”
“I believe there are limits that have been crossed that involve removing speaking rights and that suddenly now involve veto rights over who is able to be recognized as a member of Parliament,” Williamson said.
“This also involves our democratic principles. If we, that is to say, you, Mr. Speaker, reinforce the authority of members of Parliament by reaffirming their right to speak, [and] then your right to recognize them, we will together strengthen democracy in this chamber.”
I’m all for the wigged out cracker-jacks of the conservative back bench getting their regressive views into the limelight; then people can see the balefully retrograde, and decidedly icky ideas they have voted for. The next logical step for the electorate, like a satisfying peristaltic contraction, is to expel the pants-on-head-retarded, ass-clownage (see Conservative Party of Canada), from power.
The RPOJ comes for thee BJ!
I had a sense on this one, as I was typing my reply to the burning stupid present on this site, that my commentary might not be published. Given that dudes, with what they deem to be important opinions, tend not to like being shown how audaciously wrong they are. I took it upon myself to save a copy of my reply. Much to my surprise(?) my comment did not make it past moderation, and thus, because of the supernovae grade idiocy on display, the commentary in question became a prime candidate for a RPOJ post.
This fine individual, I think we’ll call him Bobby-Joe, has some strong words for the female folk and how they need to behave to make his man-wishes come true and for society to continue to function. BJ’s notion of bodily autonomy and women’s rights fits nicely into to Dark Ages – I’m sure he and the New Pope-pitude could hate-fap for days about the nefarious wimmenz and their evil plot(s) to destroy mankind.
This RPOJ post is a little on the low-hanging fruit side because the exceedingly insipid nature of the argumentation, but hey, even dour feminists need some R and R once and awhile. So let us explore, together, the deep wisdom BJ expounds but cowardly won’t defend in his little corner of the Internet.
Let us begin:
“I have been looking for something to write a blog about and why not this(not naming the topic, in well, your topic sentence isn’t usually a good start BJ, unless of course you are deliberatly being obtuse to increase the tension, not that you have much choice…). It seems to be in my newsfeed a lot lately. And is definitely something (oooh! this may actually be purposeful) that cannot be ignored. You would not ignore a serial killer would you(Drama!! No, says the careful reader, we certainly would not!)?”
I believe women have the RIGHT to end their pregnancies (Wow! A firm statement of support for women and their autonomy, hurrah!), I also believe they have the RIGHT to be arrested and tried as a murderer for doing so (Oh, so close! Throwing your hat in with the crackling anal-fissures known as the forced birth movement just destroyed your credibility!). Just as anyone has the right to do whatever they want in this country (It would be nice if you would exercise the right not to act like a privileged, ignorant, misogynist bastion of douche-a-tude.) but they also have to face the consequences (and yours will be the upcoming excoriation of all the stupid shite you’ve written and posted on the internet.) for their decisions in this country.
I find the entire abortion thing hilarious (because the discussion surrounding the rights of women are of a particularly jocular nature…but full marks for setting up and then slam dunking the incredulity fallacy.) For a country trying to turn to “science” for answers, it is completely ignored when it comes to unborn babies (Let it be noted here that BJ does not have even the faintest idea was Science is, how to use it, or what it actually says on the topic of abortion). Science (One might, if not dramatically ignorant, delimit “Science” down to “Biology”) proves they are living things, unique, individuals (err…actually no, we haven’t been able to nail down when individuation happens) before the time that is deemed acceptable to end their lives in the womb. But for a society saying (BJ, speaks not only for science, but society as well – he is well and truly and expert of many, if not all fields.) to turn to science and not religion, we sure are avoiding science (BJ’s interpretation of what science “says” can be interpreted as “what my inept seedy little mind shits out”) as much as possible when it comes to this. Why? Because it supports what “religious freaks” have been saying.
At this time, I’d like to state that BJ neither cites, quotes nor accurately depicts anything resembling science, biology or, to be painfully honest, fact. Most of what follows is just the sketchy byproduct of the 3 or so neurons knocking around in his braincase. The RPOJ demands accuracy and completion, so gentle reader, we must continue fastidiously forewarned with this fabulous foray into fail.
This would be the same for everything if they could somehow get it to fit (so many pronouns, what do they refer too?), but with this, they cannot. Therefore, they have to ignore the science (‘Science’ being what I’ve recently pulled out of my ass and declared to be “fact“). If they looked at the science, abortion would be made illegal (“Science”, Binkey,…errr…BJ… says nothing about the moral/legal/ethical nature of abortion. Science deals with empirical knowledge, and that is it. It would be nice if you stopped pretending to be the spokesperson of “Science” or anything important for that matter.) and those undergoing the procedure or those doing it, would be arrested and put into prison for murder (because I understand what women have to go through during pregnancy and I ‘get’ the choices that women have to face when family planning, like totally. I’m not just some wanker with a fatuous opinion…) Murder is not acceptable in any case, only sometimes it is deemed as self-defense (contradicting yourself in the same sentence – I’m gobstruck by the amount of noise your intricate neural net must produce, maybe we can distill and bottle it as intellect depressant) but this cannot be claimed as such.
There is no reasonable cause to kill an unborn baby (ectopic pregnancies and host of other medical necessities be damned! Not to mention that whole treating women 
as people thing.). People can throw whatever emotional traps (that strange sound eminating from women demanding the right to their bodily autonomy. BJ, ensconced deep within your fortress of ineptitude, it might be valuable to consider that radical notion that women are people too.) forward to make you cry before giving in, but it does not change the facts (Fun Fact: everytime BJ says something is a fact, it provably isn’t! It is like some perverse episode of Jeopardy.). If I said this five-year-old child is going to make these parents broke in ten years as a hungry, rebellious teenager, does that give them the right to get rid of the child (If I said that your ass was actually your hat, would you be an ass-hat? – Of course you would, making irrelevant analogies firmly plants you in the realm of asshatery!)? I hope most people would say no, and be in outrage at the thought it. This is my thought (and what a mighty singular thought it was) when people say, oh, the parents cannot afford to have a baby, they will go broke, and they will be homeless.
[Skipping a paragraph because I’m running out of synonyms for “stupid”]
By logic I hear from pro-murder people (It is nice that you admit that logic is on the side of women, but then you just say inane things. In my original response I said that you mischaracterized the pro-choice position, but now in sombre second thought we can safely deduce you’re just confabulating a nice straw argument to bash the crap out of later.), is that the simplest solution to this is to stop of sex (Like the ides of March….beware of the “stop of sex”!!/!). If you want to end the problem before it becomes one with abortion, why not go one-step back and stop the process from happening in the first place (because sex only for procreation is such a realistic solution? *headdesk* )? If you are not on the page of being ready to have a child, do not initiate the process.
Make no mistake, the pro-life-forced-birth lobby are advocating slavery for women. Dianne, in a comment on Pharygula, captures exactly the position our anti-choice friends would like to put women in.
Query: Why are they talking about the circumstances of the conception as though that matters? A forced pregnancy is slavery, regardless of the circumstances that led to the pregnancy. In the US, at least, people are never, under any circumstance other than pregnancy, required to give use of their body to another under any circumstance, even to save the life of the other person. Why are fetuses granted more rights than living people?
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…